Last night, Portlanders turned down a plan to fluoridate their city’s water supplies (and the water of over a dozen other cities). It is the fourth time Portland has opposed the public health measure since 1956. It’s the fourth time they’ve got the science wrong.
When new medical treatments are introduced, when new drugs are introduced into the population, there is always some hesitation. There are (hopefully) some clinical studies to support the new intervention, but the long-term effects are often unclear. This problem does not exist with the fluoridation of water. It has been rigorously tested as a public health measure for over 65 years and is considered one of the most successful measures of the past 100 years, along with others such as the recognition of tobacco use as a health risk.
Simply put, the refusal to fluoridate water has no scientific support. A report on the effects of fluoride on IQ from Harvard was touted as the main scientific objection, but has since been thoroughly refuted. Decades of studies in different cities in different states, attended by millions of people, have concluded that there is a safe level of fluoride – one part per million – that can be added to the water with tremendous benefits to our teeth and oral health with little too no adverse effects.
Without a study to rely on, the greatest opposition to fluoridation of water appears to be political. It’s almost understandable that Portland health professionals could stand up to fluoride and turn down fluoride. Part of the American experiment has been to let states decide for themselves what is best for them and give citizens the freedom to criticize government policies. But the opponents of water fluoridation box with one mind. There are no known victims of water fluoridation. There are no cities that receive a toxic concentration of the ion. The fluoridation of water is not just the addition of fluoride; it is the regulation of fluoride in the water supply. The ion occurs naturally in different amounts in groundwater, some of which are even too high. When it does, fluoride is actually removed from the water for the most benefit. Arguing against regulated fluoride intake in water is like anemic refusal to take iron supplements. The doctor is not trying to add enough iron to your blood for Magneto to pull it out; She tries to make sure that the levels in your blood are good for your health.
“Strangely keep Portland away from modern medicine”
Portland is a beautiful, if a little rainy, city full of greenery, mountains and some of the most interesting nightlife you will ever see. But chemophobia is in the air. Fluoride – an aggressively electronegative atom with an extra electron – was investigated in a smear campaign. The indictment against this negatively charged particle uses propaganda interspersed with a high concentration of terrifying terms and mischaracterizations to amass a small but very vocal base.
Since there’s no evidence that a regulated amount of fluoride in our water does harm – reality is just the opposite – graphic posters like this on the right side color the conversation. Poison? Insecticides? Bone cancer? Why would Portland fluoridate if this poster were right?
But it is not. The fear of fluoride follows the same playbook for the mischaracterization of chemicals. First, the chemical is labeled as “toxic,” but there is no mention that anything is toxic in appropriate amounts. Advil and Tylenol are toxic in sufficiently high concentrations, as is water. Many chemicals are harmless within a range of toxicity, and many are useful up to a point. Next, the dangerous effects of the chemical at massive concentrations are given. But 1/100 or 1/10 ounce of fluoride would never be in a glass of tap water in a regulated area – in fact, you are much more likely to find dangerously high levels of fluoride in unregulated water supplies. One part per million is the recommended dose, and so an ion floats between a million water molecules. What happens at higher doses can be terrible, and that’s exactly why you won’t find these levels in regulated water supplies.
The final attempt is to associate the chemical with other scary things that it contains. This may come as a surprise, but don’t be frightened – your body produces formaldehyde. It does this of course, but the chemical doesn’t harm or kill you. It’s all about the dose; it makes the poison. Just as a natural amount of formaldehyde in your body is not a cause for concern, a regulated and proven useful amount of fluoride in your water is also not a cause for concern.
And the fear is selective. Where is the anti-chlorine lobby? Chlorine is a chemical – also an ion – that is added to water and is also considered to be one of the greatest health measures in history. It’s also proven to reduce disease and create a healthier population. Chloride has all of the properties that make fluoride “scary”. If an identical situation creates almost no setback, then it speaks for the basis of fluoride fear. It’s not a science.
Posters and information campaigns like the one above have done more damage to chemicals than yesterday’s vote. The chemophobia playbook has tattered edges and frayed covers. The plan to destroy public support for a chemical is tired, derogatory, inaccurate, and worked in Portland.
Chemical conspiracy
“Portland is wrong about fluoridation” is exactly what a government would say, isn’t it?
The claims against fluoride are exaggerated, science thinks it safe, so the conspiracy theories that claim it is a mind control agent or a dumbing down recipe fed to helpless sheep remain. Although a conspiracy is almost impossible to refute – every piece of evidence against the conspiracy is “part of the conspiracy” – the supposed fluoride conspiracy is almost impossible to accept. While we are in a stagnant blockade of Congress, accepting a fluoride conspiracy means answering “yes” to all of the following:
Could the government …?
- Control every single scientist who has ever published a study on water fluoridation?
- Control every single website that promotes the use of fluoridation?
- Do you have significant private control over the infrastructure of the internet in order to quell conspiracies?
- Are you stopping any government official or scientist who has known about fluoridation for the past 65 years from saying a word about the dangers in the recommended amounts?
- Control and coordinate advocacy groups at the local level to write reports and organize for the benefit of the process?
- Do you have the time and resources to carry out all of these suppression operations for half a century?
Fluoridation conspiracy theorists cannot trust the government to safely add / remove anything from their water – as it does with chlorine, cryptosporidium cysts, carbon-based solids, oil, fat, arsenic, lead, and selenium – but they give the government the edge of doubt when it comes to monitoring every scrap of information on fluoridation for the past 65 years. As with most conspiracies, pulling the thread untangles the theory.
And if fluoridation of water is a big conspiracy, at least it is safe and inexpensive. The CDC estimates that every US dollar invested in the practice saves about US $ 38 in dental costs.
The freedom to question the government that makes America great is a banner that shadows our most cherished values. Sometimes the shadow creeps too far. Should we be free to oppose a very important public health measure? When the anchoring of autonomy penetrates areas where personal opinion is the lowest form of evidence, it leads to confusing questions about whether or not we have a right to be less healthy.
Portland has the right to keep fluoride out of its water because the rallying cry of American freedom trumps a data point on a graph. Even when first- to third-grader dental health surveys recommend fluoridating the water, the topic becomes skewed and amplified into a political screech of uncomfortable lows and terrifying highs. Portland is not keeping pace with dental health through election, political motives, and often legitimate concerns about government interference. Yesterday’s vote was a science communication failure and it is up to public health officials to correct that and take back the word “chemical”. Perhaps refocusing the conversation on dental health or water fluoridation as a regulation rather than just a supplement could be helpful. Until political questions are seriously informed through scientific answers, fear and freedom beat the facts.
Science can lead a person to fluoridated water, but it cannot make them drink.
–
Credit:
Panoramic x-ray of all 32 teeth of a man in his 40s without tooth decay or fillings or other dental work by Ruhrfisch.
Anti-fluoridation poster from Alex Jones’ Infowars.com
Comments are closed.